@gros-louis - Its quite simple. You think Texas would've been in with a cupcake non-conf and 2 conference losses, based on the fact that they have 3 losses and were ranked higher than any other 3 loss team. Therefore, you assume with 2 losses, they would've made the tournament, purely because Sark and their fanbase is whining. They were eliminated and had no shot once they lost their 2nd conference game. Had they not played a tough non-conference opponent, like Ohio State, they wouldn't have had the same SOS, and like Ole Miss, would've only had room for one conference loss. Therefore, their 2 conference losses still would've eliminated them. Its literally proving my point that playing the extra tough game vs a non-conf like OSU has no impact other than its possible you win and give yourself added cushion during conference play.
@gros-louis - Its quite simple. You think Texas would've been in with a cupcake non-conf and 2 conference losses, based on the fact that they have 3 losses and were ranked higher than any other 3 loss team. Therefore, you assume with 2 losses, they would've made the tournament, purely because Sark and their fanbase is whining. They were eliminated and had no shot once they lost their 2nd conference game. Had they not played a tough non-conference opponent, like Ohio State, they wouldn't have had the same SOS, and like Ole Miss, would've only had room for one conference loss. Therefore, their 2 conference losses still would've eliminated them. Its literally proving my point that playing the extra tough game vs a non-conf like OSU has no impact other than its possible you win and give yourself added cushion during conference play.
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense in theory, but so far it just doesn't look like we have enough evidence of it really making a difference. The at-large selections this year are mostly 1-loss teams. I guess Oklahoma kind of fits your model if you say beating UM gave them leeway? Miami sort of maybe fits, but they were unique in that they beat the team they were being compared against for the final slot. What we really need is to find a team that lost their big non-con game, finished with two total losses, and still got in. Where is that team? Bama? I just don't know we have enough examples to really say that's the way to cover your bases.
Now, when the field expands to 16, that could change things quite a bit, because then the committee will be comparing the resumes of a larger number of 2- and even 3-loss teams.
Indiana still needs to compile wins, in my opinion. Unless they can land a huge name OOC opponent before the ND series in 4 years. Talking Bama, Texas, Clemson, FSU, Miami... that level of name. Playing a middling SEC team, not worth the risk. Playing most ACC/B12 teams, not really worth the risk. Take the 3-0. And keep winning most of their B10 games. That's what IU needs to do until they're routinely landing top 10 HS and Portal classes.
@gros-louis - Its quite simple. You think Texas would've been in with a cupcake non-conf and 2 conference losses, based on the fact that they have 3 losses and were ranked higher than any other 3 loss team. Therefore, you assume with 2 losses, they would've made the tournament, purely because Sark and their fanbase is whining. They were eliminated and had no shot once they lost their 2nd conference game. Had they not played a tough non-conference opponent, like Ohio State, they wouldn't have had the same SOS, and like Ole Miss, would've only had room for one conference loss. Therefore, their 2 conference losses still would've eliminated them. Its literally proving my point that playing the extra tough game vs a non-conf like OSU has no impact other than its possible you win and give yourself added cushion during conference play.
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense in theory, but so far it just doesn't look like we have enough evidence of it really making a difference. The at-large selections this year are mostly 1-loss teams. I guess Oklahoma kind of fits your model if you say beating UM gave them leeway? Miami sort of maybe fits, but they were unique in that they beat the team they were being compared against for the final slot. What we really need is to find a team that lost their big non-con game, finished with two total losses, and still got in. Where is that team? Bama? I just don't know we have enough examples to really say that's the way to cover your bases.
Now, when the field expands to 16, that could change things quite a bit, because then the committee will be comparing the resumes of a larger number of 2- and even 3-loss teams.
To be fair, there are no guarantees either way. But the odds are the same going in both direction. They were quite clear that Oregon and Ole Miss needed to win out after their losses or they likely would be on the outside looking in. So we know you only get one loss if your non-conf schedule is bad. Oklahoma and Alabama are good examples of teams, albeit Bama played 2 P4 non-conf games in FSU and Wisconsin. They lost one of those non-conf games and lost a conf game (championship game removed) they were still in the playoff. Its the attempt that seems to always be rewarded as almost a freebie. The idea of that gets lost in the shuffle because of all the complaining Texas is doing.
ND is hard to use as a comparison, but they had an easy schedule, lost 2 games and they were out. Last year the 3 loss SEC teams whined and complained about a 1 loss Indiana team but they had 3 losses and played no one in the non-conf! ha It was a wild argument to have. Last year TN played #24 NC State and finished with 2 conf losses, they were in because of it.
I do agree with Lois in his likely thinking that the SEC bias is such that they get a slight nudge based on the polls always over hyping them. Therefore, they are perceived to have a tougher schedule built into their season without the non-conf and may have some people allow them with 2 losses and no tough non-conf games. Its just you need to play the odds and odds align with putting a good non-conf game up front.
Isn't it a moot point basically? When does the SEC go to 9 conference games? I thought in response the B10 mandated teams would need to add 1 P5 OOC opponent? If so, when does that start?
We’re having this debate again?
I don’t even see what the problem is. The staff knows what they’re doing with the schedule and it’s working.
Isn't it a moot point basically? When does the SEC go to 9 conference games? I thought in response the B10 mandated teams would need to add 1 P5 OOC opponent? If so, when does that start?
the SEC schedule changes next year, I believe. That may you not be realistic, though. And the Big Ten has not required a P4 nonconference game like the SEC has to this point
Ending the season where we started LOL.
Hell, I dug up an article I wrote about it in 2013.
The IU schedule should have some goals:
1) Maximize home games. IU needs at least 7 home games every year. IU is 15-0 at home under Cig. If you can get a better team to come to MS for a one off, fine. But no reason to go on the road.
2) Wins…Yes, 24-2 over the last two years really makes people think IU should go play a heavyweight. Pass, you get enough of those in the Big Ten. Should IU discount tickets for non-con games? Yes.
3) Don’t change the philosophy until you have to. Until IU is negatively affected by their scheduling there is no reason to change it. Paul Finebaum shouldn’t bully IU into scheduling a P4 game that he won’t watch, but will cry about later. Until the committee cares about non-conference foes, keep on keeping on.
4. Don’t judge future schedules too early. It turned out that ODU and Kennesaw State had really nice years. ISU disappointed. A tough non-conference opponent is tough until they aren’t (Clemson, FSU etc)
@thehoosierhuddle - I am fairly confident coach reassesses each season after it's over.
We were on the bubble last year so contrary to your explanation, that strategy was negatively affecting us. Now I say that but clearly, we didn't know we were going to be that good. I have been a major proponent of IU scheduling cupcakes for all non-conf games until we built up our program. That was because IU was so awful that we needed to find a way to stack wins and bowl appearances to improve our image. It's not about Finebaum, his opinion is worthless. It's about recognizing where we are as a program today and acting like one because if you look deeper into it, there are residual benefits of having a tough game in the non-conf when you are one of the top teams, that outweigh the downsides.
Again, I think people look at Texas as the example, but Texas lost 3 games. Had they played 4 patsies in their non-conference (instead of OSU) and lost 2 in conference, they would still be on the outside looking in. Thereby, the one tough non-conf game only gave them an additional opportunity to gain an important win. The loss had no impact on them other than it gave them street cred for hanging around at OSU.
As for not judging future schedules too early, I agree. ODU and KSU could have really nice years, and Clemson and FSU could be really bad. The difference is no one respects ODU or KSU when we play them and we actually dropped down after a win. Meanwhile, we could've played a worse opponent with a bigger name (ala Clemson or FSU) and shot up the charts in doing so.
I am not basing this logic on people complaining about our weak schedule or any of that nonsense. They can Kiss our collective arses. I am saying if you scrape away all BS, you can find that playing a tough opponent early on can truly provide more benefit than it takes away.
@thehoosierhuddle - I am fairly confident coach reassesses each season after it's over.
We were on the bubble last year so contrary to your explanation, that strategy was negatively affecting us. Now I say that but clearly, we didn't know we were going to be that good. I have been a major proponent of IU scheduling cupcakes for all non-conf games until we built up our program. That was because IU was so awful that we needed to find a way to stack wins and bowl appearances to improve our image. It's not about Finebaum, his opinion is worthless. It's about recognizing where we are as a program today and acting like one because if you look deeper into it, there are residual benefits of having a tough game in the non-conf when you are one of the top teams, that outweigh the downsides.
Again, I think people look at Texas as the example, but Texas lost 3 games. Had they played 4 patsies in their non-conference (instead of OSU) and lost 2 in conference, they would still be on the outside looking in. Thereby, the one tough non-conf game only gave them an additional opportunity to gain an important win. The loss had no impact on them other than it gave them street cred for hanging around at OSU.
As for not judging future schedules too early, I agree. ODU and KSU could have really nice years, and Clemson and FSU could be really bad. The difference is no one respects ODU or KSU when we play them and we actually dropped down after a win. Meanwhile, we could've played a worse opponent with a bigger name (ala Clemson or FSU) and shot up the charts in doing so.
I am not basing this logic on people complaining about our weak schedule or any of that nonsense. They can Kiss our collective arses. I am saying if you scrape away all BS, you can find that playing a tough opponent early on can truly provide more benefit than it takes away.
I don't think we were a bubble team last year. Everyone knew we were in, we just also happened to be the team the SEC decided to pick on as unworthy.
@whatthefrik We were safe as of selection Sunday. But after the OSU game we did not control our own destiny. A lot of other teams had to lose for us to be safely in.
I have long been a proponent of what @thehoosierhuddle described as IU's scheduling tactic. I argued this offseason about it nonstop that IU was scheduling properly.
HOWEVER the game has changed. SEC goes to 9 conference games AND requires a 10th p4 game. IU now needs to change its philosophy as well. What made sense before doesn't any longer given the shift in other conferences obligations. If IU continues to schedule as is, they are playing with fire. I hope the big goes to 10 conference games and IU automatically gets another home game without having to go out and schedule it.
@whatthefrik - IU was very much on the bubble and if it weren't for the SEC having a chaotic last couple of weeks, IU was certainly on the outside looking in. They were clamoring for all of the 3 loss SEC teams to be in over a bad scheduled 1 loss IU team. If South Carolina, Ole Miss, or Bama hadn't lost in those last 2 weeks, any of those hypothetical 2 loss teams would've been in over IU.
The Big Ten will go to 10 games before they go back to requiring a 10th P4 opponent. In 2024, IU wasn't really on the bubble. They were ranked 8th, safely in. However, with the way it was seeded, they got bumped to 10th because of the conference title rules. Those rules changed. Right now, there is no good reason to change the way IU schedules. None, losing to P4 teams is more of a negative than beating a "soft" non-conference schedule. The argument that it would prepare you for the Big Ten is out the window as well. The ONLY argument for it is that fans want a better game and I understand that. But until they are forced to do so, why would it change.
Alabama didn't make the playoff because it scheduled Wisconsin instead of UAB, they got in because the SEC was ready to pull the plug on the SEC title game if they dropped out. Notre Dame didn't get in because they started 2-0 where if they scheduled NIU (assuming they won this time) and was 1-1 they get in. Texas didn't get in because they lost to a 4-8 Florida team and needed OT to beat Miss State and nearly lost at Kentucky.
Duke didn't get in as a P4 champion because they scheduled and lost to Illinois, at Tulane and at UConn. Wins are more important than losses. Can IU knock off P4 teams in the non-conference. But why are you going to schedule a meat grinder game when you don't need to.
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
